C
ChristopherJB5
Guest
your face is unconstitutional
- Status
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
A
Aquinas62
Guest
what I mean by “gay battalion”, was a group of armed forces members in uniform marching in a pride parade… not a actual unit!!!
K
kenofken
Guest
That’s too bad. Drag queens can be vicious fighters when provoked, and nothing would break the will of an Islamist enemy like a wave of giant Ru Paul clones bearing down on them!
Seriously though, what you mention need not be an issue. I believe there are a number of regs about wearing one’s uniform in ways that appear to endorse a cause in an official military capacity. They should be able to join such a parade in civies off duty however if they want. Right now, just a rumor that somebody SAW you in the vicinity of a gay parade is enough to get an investigation and discharge.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Under Article 31 that would not be allowed. You know by joining the military you give up your 1st Amendment right along with other rights.
A
Aquinas62
Guest
True, but what would scare me, is then no commander would ever enforce Article 31, in this case, it would be the kiss of death to someones military career due to the political pressure brought to bear
Kenofken, I agree with you, that that is the kind of stuff that needs to end, if they didn’t tell, they should not suffer any repercussions.
Kenofken, I agree with you, that that is the kind of stuff that needs to end, if they didn’t tell, they should not suffer any repercussions.
T
TMC
Guest
I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said on this thread, Stan, and I don’t want to nitpick, but servicemembers do not give up their 1st Amendment rights, not completely. They do agree to some very significant restrictions on those rights while they serve. Maybe the most important is that they cannot use their uniform or service status to enhance or color their engagement in political activities. They can (generally) participate in political activities if they do so without dragging their service into the picture. I agree that means that servicemembers could not march in a gay pride parade in uniform, but I would point out that they are not allowed to participate in other political events in uniform, either.
L
LatinJohn
Guest
To those that are in support of allowing openly homesexual persons to serve in the military. Would you also support coed heads (latrines) and showers? Privacy is my biggest problem with DADT. I don’t know how things are now, but when I served showers were crowded and open. To me showering with someone I know to suffer from SSA would make me as uncomfortable as showering with a female.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
MMmmmmmm. I doubt very much that the military is tolerant of servicemen having relations with underaged young women. Generally speaking, it’s not too tolerant of felonious behavior. And, while adulterous behavior might well be tolerated in the ranks, it sure isn’t when it comes to officer promotion if it’s known.
Again, I’m not arguing whether homosexuals make good soldiers. I never knew one, and couldn’t say. My fundamental problem is with the government officially endorsing homosexuality as “normal” and equivalent to heterosexual relationships. Get rid of DADT, and that’s exactly what it will be doing. As a Catholic who accepts the Church’s teachings, I cannot approve of the government making such a declaration, any more than I can approve of this administration’s promotion of abortion and fetal stem cell research.
Besides, as we saw before (and no one challenged it) DADT adversely affects .004 of the homosexuals in the military at the most, and of them, some unknown number admittedly violated it in protest against it.
So, repealing DADT is of benefit to a miniscule number at best, but will be the federal government’s first official and pervasive affirmation of homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality. It has been admitted by people on here who favor repeal of DADT that some portion of the population will almost certainly eschew military service if it openly endorses advertisement of one’s homosexuality. The Marine Corps Commandant opposes repeal. The heads of the Army and Navy won’t say what they think (even though their boss favors repeal)
But as I have said before, Obama will repeal DADT. My guess is he’s waiting until he disengages from the two wars in Islamic countries; having some concern, one supposes, that a military that endorses homosexuality will not be particularly favored in Islamic countries. If this government quakes in fear of “putting targets on the backs” of American service people because of public opposition to a mosque in NYC, and some ignorant preacher threatening to burn a Koran in front of 30 people, then it surely fears creating grist for the Islamic propaganda mills, who will undoubtedly announce that “American soldiers are sodomites” the instant Obama repeals DADT.
But he’ll do it as soon as he thinks the coast is clear.
D
dswearin
Guest
My question is, at what point do you stop? Isn’t fornication sin? Should we kick every soldier out for having extra-marital sex? Should we kick out every soldier who is not a Christian? We know that rejecting Christ is just as wrong as fornication or homosexual acts. Should we kick out a person who refuses to go to Mass every week? The Church considers that a mortal sin, putting it in line with all those other sins. Should we kick out soldiers who look at porn? I’ve heard nasty stories from military friends about how much porn has permeated the military (I’ve heard of porn parties where a group of soldiers will watch a porn movie).
At what point do you stop with the enforcement of morality? A person’s sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with how well they can do their job. I don’t care about your stats regarding the homosexual lifestyle or so-called “mountaineers” who won’t join because of gays, the bottom line is, “Who can do the job?” The government should not restrict an activity that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The rest is between the person and God.
At what point do you stop with the enforcement of morality? A person’s sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with how well they can do their job. I don’t care about your stats regarding the homosexual lifestyle or so-called “mountaineers” who won’t join because of gays, the bottom line is, “Who can do the job?” The government should not restrict an activity that does not infringe upon the rights of another. The rest is between the person and God.
S
Sonic
Guest
I’m wondering… is serving in the military a right or a privilege?
Do people have the right to serve in the military, or is it a privilege?
The answer to that question could very well change the question of constitutionality or unconstitutionality.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7064619&postcount=131
Do people have the right to serve in the military, or is it a privilege?
The answer to that question could very well change the question of constitutionality or unconstitutionality.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7064619&postcount=131
D
dswearin
Guest
I would think it’s a priviledge. I get the feeling that this question is leading somewhere. If it is, my response would be: Driving is also a priviledge (as it can easily be taken away and has no constitutional protection), should we prevent gays from driving? Governmental assistance (welfare) is not a right, should we bar gays from receiving it when they need it?
If your question wasn’t headed in that direction, then ignore me.
S
Sonic
Guest
I’m been studying this law, and I don’t understand half the ruckus here. 1993 S. 1337 Section 546 clearly states that the Secretary of Defense could simply just ignore the issue altogether as being an obsolete policy. Why is all this effort being made to overturn 1993 S. 1337 Section 546, when it would be easier to convince the Secretary of Defense to change military procedure?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7064619&postcount=131
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7064619&postcount=131
Perhaps the real issue isn’t DADT. Perhaps the Real issue is oveturning of Title 10 section 654 of the Uniform code.
S
Sonic
Guest
Get a load of this…
According to Tite 10 Section 654 Subsection E, the military doesn’t have to dismiss anyone from military service for Homosexuality if it’s not in the best interests of the military to do so.
source: law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
So, the issue rests right back in the lap of the Secretary of Defense. It’s also appearing to me that Title 10 Section 654 isn’t an issue, either.
R
RobHom
Guest
In my mind it is neither a right or a privilege. I believe it is the duty of every American to serve their country.
I think you would find it more than difficult to even isolate what the real question is: Is it one’s duty, right or privilege…
I cannot see any way to define it as a right or privilege… Except where someone who has a criminal record and is granted a waiver allowing he or she to serve…in that case it would be a “privilege granted to the individual”. A “right”…no, because then that would apply in a fashion that would guarantee active duty status to persons who are not fit, physically, morally, or legally.
What you are left with is: DUTY. I happen to be one of those people who believes that all Americans have a DUTY to serve their country and its people in some capacity or another…be it in the military, public service, or as a volunteer with an organization that serves our people.
In so far as the judge in CA… I hate to sound like this…but there is a reason that California is referred to as “The Left Coast”… and the simple fact is…many of the weirdest and most whacko court decisions come out of there.
The judge wanted her 15 minutes of fame…and her face in the news. She got it.
I didn’t read all of the responses in this thread, but I can tell you that my experiences in the military (10 Years in the late 60’s to late 70’s) are that many gay men and women did in fact serve, and did so “Honorably”…they answered the draft, or enlisted and served well. They did however, understand that it was both better and safer to remain in the closet…as to come out could have dire effects. Not to mention bad discharges and courts martial under the UCMJ.
I have no problem with gays serving… But I have a problem with gays being flagrant about their sexual orientation. Mainly because it would be a major problem beginning at the squad/section level.
I see nothing wrong with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…
As to “unconstitutional”…the judges so called ruling was simply pandering to a select group of people in a geographic area.
In the few cases where I saw a gay man discharged from the Army, it was usually at the request of the fellow. And in other cases, there was far more to the story than was apparent to those no privy to all the facts.
And…I agree that a “platoon” of Ru Pauls would scare the dickens out of just about anyone!!
S
Sonic
Guest
Another observation I’ve made…
source: law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
Title Ten Section 654 does not make a moral judgment concerning homosexual behavior. It does not state that homosexual behavior is right or wrong. It simply states that personnel are required to refrain from this type of behavior. Therefore, it falls under a personnel discipline requirement and not a moral requirement concerning the behavior of personnel.
source: law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
Title Ten Section 654 does not make a moral judgment concerning homosexual behavior. It does not state that homosexual behavior is right or wrong. It simply states that personnel are required to refrain from this type of behavior. Therefore, it falls under a personnel discipline requirement and not a moral requirement concerning the behavior of personnel.
R
RobHom
Guest
Sonic… Good information!! Those in doubt should read it… 
D
donsnow
Guest
I’ve always believed it’s a duty.In my mind it is neither a right or a privilege. I believe it is the duty of every American to serve their country.
I think you would find it more than difficult to even isolate what the real question is: Is it one’s duty, right or privilege…
I cannot see any way to define it as a right or privilege… Except where someone who has a criminal record and is granted a waiver allowing he or she to serve…in that case it would be a “privilege granted to the individual”. A “right”…no, because then that would apply in a fashion that would guarantee active duty status to persons who are not fit, physically, morally, or legally.
What you are left with is: DUTY. I happen to be one of those people who believes that all Americans have a DUTY to serve their country and its people in some capacity or another…be it in the military, public service, or as a volunteer with an organization that serves our people.
In so far as the judge in CA… I hate to sound like this…but there is a reason that California is referred to as “The Left Coast”… and the simple fact is…many of the weirdest and most whacko court decisions come out of there.
The judge wanted her 15 minutes of fame…and her face in the news. She got it.
I didn’t read all of the responses in this thread, but I can tell you that my experiences in the military (10 Years in the late 60’s to late 70’s) are that many gay men and women did in fact serve, and did so “Honorably”…they answered the draft, or enlisted and served well. They did however, understand that it was both better and safer to remain in the closet…as to come out could have dire effects. Not to mention bad discharges and courts martial under the UCMJ.
I have no problem with gays serving… But I have a problem with gays being flagrant about their sexual orientation. Mainly because it would be a major problem beginning at the squad/section level.
I see nothing wrong with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…
As to “unconstitutional”…the judges so called ruling was simply pandering to a select group of people in a geographic area.
In the few cases where I saw a gay man discharged from the Army, it was usually at the request of the fellow. And in other cases, there was far more to the story than was apparent to those no privy to all the facts.
Good post, Rob.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Maybe so.
I heard the other day that the Secretary of Defense is not inclined to change its present status.
- Status